USA v. Antonio Montes-Ruiz, No. 15-41482 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-41482 Document: 00513798462 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-41482 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 15, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, versus ANTONIO MONTES-RUIZ, Also Known as Tonio, Defendant–Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-19-16 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Antonio Montes-Ruiz has moved for Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-41482 Document: 00513798462 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2016 No. 15-41482 leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Montes-Ruiz has filed a response and a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and for an evidentiary hearing. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Montes-Ruiz’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or his claims that coercion or duress tainted his guilty plea; we therefore decline to consider the claims on direct review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 176– 78 (5th Cir. 1984). We have reviewed counsel’s brief, relevant portions of the record reflected therein, and Montes-Ruiz’s response and his motion. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Montes-Ruiz’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and for an evidentiary hearing, docketed as a motion for extraordinary relief, is DENIED. 2